The English language has recently become the breeding ground for a distinctive set of terms that I will tentatively refer to as "man words." These are words such as "man bag," "man flu," "mankini," etc. You have undoubtedly encountered some of them in everyday conversation and perhaps even used a few yourself. They are typically nouns, preceded by the word “man,” so as to indicate that the thing this word refers to is intended to be used by a man. Even though "man words" are a recent development in the English language, their use is becoming increasingly widespread, especially in informal contexts.

The trend started with catchy fashion-related words such as the abovementioned "man bag" and soon other permutations followed. The trend keeps gaining momentum, with new "man words" being coined in increasingly creative ways. On the surface, these terms seem to be just another fun pop culture addition to the English vocabulary and not necessarily something that is meant to be taken seriously. They certainly do not come across as the most obvious candidates for linguistic analysis. However, I think "man words" are actually far less innocent than they seem and that it is therefore important to look into the meanings they convey and the effect they may be creating. Beneath their humorous surface, there is a layer of meaning that is not only unfunny, but potentially harmful. This implicit meaning contains the kind of gender stereotypes that can have a detrimental effect on people's perception of gender.

Language affects the way we perceive the world. Our world view, in turn, influences our actions.

Studies in linguistic relativity have provided us with the insight that language affects the way we perceive the world. Our world view, in turn, influences our actions, which are reflected in the constructs we create around us, whether they be culture, social norms, or laws. In light of this theory, the presence of gender stereotypes in a language feature such as "man words" is not a purely linguistic, academic problem—it is a real problem whose consequences can be felt in the real world. We can get an idea of the nature of this problem if we look into the underlying meaning of "man words."

"Man bag" is one of the most widely used "man words" and its overt meaning is self-explanatory. The reason why the meaning is so obvious is that an existing word (handbag) is being used as the basis for a new word intended to be used for a men's equivalent of the same concept. The same structuring principle is used in other fashion-related "man words", such as "mankup," "manliner," (or “guyliner”) "manscara," "mantyhose," and the aforementioned "mankini." The consistent structure makes the surface meaning of these words immediately recognizable.

However, these words have an additional, more subtle meaning. Namely, the addition of "man" to the above fashion-oriented words implies that the original words are somehow inherently feminine and it takes the prefix "man" to linguistically neutralize them and, in a way, redeem them. But the implication goes even further. Objects such as handbags, pantyhose, and makeup are associated with fashion and beauty. Both of those categories are generally considered to be consumerist and not particularly profound. Even though this subtext may not be immediately obvious, when people repeatedly use or are exposed to these fashion-related man words, the implicit correlation between superficial consumerism and femininity gradually builds up in the unconscious. The "women=superficial consumers" stereotype gets entrenched in our minds. The presence of glaring stereotypes about women in the unconscious does leave a mark on our environment through the aesthetic standards, social norms, and expectations we create.

The damage caused by "man words" isn't limited to women. “Man words" also contribute to the negative stereotyping of men. The previously mentioned "man flu" is one such example. The Oxford Dictionary defines man flu as "a cold or similar minor ailment as experienced by a man who is regarded as exaggerating the severity of the symptoms." The idea here is that, deep down, men are really nothing but whiny attention-seeking weaklings who exaggerate their illnesses. But studies show that’s not true.

Man words achieve the strange feat of being offensive to both women and men, making them bizarrely egalitarian.

Research has shown that men are less likely than women to look after their health and seek medical attention when needed. According to the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, "men are 24 percent less likely than women to have visited a doctor within the past year and are 22 percent more likely to have neglected their cholesterol tests." Similar results have been reported in the U.K., where the National Pharmacy Association found that "men are much less likely than women to take advantage of primary care services, including community pharmacies. They are also unwilling to consult a pharmacist face-to-face or seek treatment when sick." This data makes the "man flu" joke fall decisively flat, and might make men even more reluctant to communicate their health problems for fear of being dismissed as needy hypochondriacs.

In addition to "man flu," there are several other offensive examples of "man words." For example, the "man language", "menglish" and something called a "MANual". These words, found in publications aimed at women, convey the stereotype that men are unable to communicate their thoughts and feelings, while women are more mature and more capable of expressing their emotions. As a result of these "fundamental" differences, men and women are effectively speaking two different languages—women's presumably being ordinary English, while men speak "menglish" or "man language." To understand what they are saying, women need an instruction "MANual". This infantilizing stereotype ultimately degrades men. And thus "man words" achieve the strange feat of being offensive both to women and men making them bizarrely egalitarian.

Despite the blatant gender stereotypes they represent, "man words" are proliferating. The most recent new "man word" I have encountered, "man bun", is a catchy name for a men’s hairstyle, not unlike a woman's hair knot or bun. In this sense, "man bun" conforms with the previously discussed fashion-related "man word" template. An article in the Yahoo Food section references the "man bun" that Jared Leto sported at the Golden Globes and then goes on to say: "Which got us thinking, if we could eat the food equivalent of the Man Bun, what would it taste like? Probably like beer, pretzels and pork, right?" This additional use of "man bun" refers to food, and conveys the meaning that a bun can be either feminine or masculine. According to this distinction, the feminine bun is the ordinary everyday variety (which, if it were a food, would presumably be made with sugar, spice and everything nice), whereas a man bun is made with stereotypically manly ingredients such as meat, beer and, apparently, pretzels.

The "man words" phenomenon is a thriving new trend in the English language that is constantly being expanded and adapted for new purposes. However, it is important to note that what is being expanded is not only the corpus of catchy new words in the English language, but also the resident gender stereotypes that these words contain at their core. Since the underlying meaning of language has a direct influence on what goes on in society, the speakers' exposure to the gender stereotypes contained in "man words" is bound to be reflected in the outside world. The ideas expressed through language have an impact on thought, which ultimately has an influence on action. If "man words" continue to be widely used without the speakers' awareness of their underlying meaning, as they are now, they will further strengthen various unhelpful gender stereotypes in our already stereotype-saturated cultural environment.

About the Author

Most Popular

Writing used to be a solitary profession. How did it become so interminably social?

Whether we’re behind the podium or awaiting our turn, numbing our bottoms on the chill of metal foldout chairs or trying to work some life into our terror-stricken tongues, we introverts feel the pain of the public performance. This is because there are requirements to being a writer. Other than being a writer, I mean. Firstly, there’s the need to become part of the writing “community”, which compels every writer who craves self respect and success to attend community events, help to organize them, buzz over them, and—despite blitzed nerves and staggering bowels—present and perform at them. We get through it. We bully ourselves into it. We dose ourselves with beta blockers. We drink. We become our own worst enemies for a night of validation and participation.

Even when a dentist kills an adored lion, and everyone is furious, there’s loftier righteousness to be had.

Now is the point in the story of Cecil the lion—amid non-stop news coverage and passionate social-media advocacy—when people get tired of hearing about Cecil the lion. Even if they hesitate to say it.

But Cecil fatigue is only going to get worse. On Friday morning, Zimbabwe’s environment minister, Oppah Muchinguri, called for the extradition of the man who killed him, the Minnesota dentist Walter Palmer. Muchinguri would like Palmer to be “held accountable for his illegal action”—paying a reported $50,000 to kill Cecil with an arrow after luring him away from protected land. And she’s far from alone in demanding accountability. This week, the Internet has served as a bastion of judgment and vigilante justice—just like usual, except that this was a perfect storm directed at a single person. It might be called an outrage singularity.

Forget credit hours—in a quest to cut costs, universities are simply asking students to prove their mastery of a subject.

MANCHESTER, Mich.—Had Daniella Kippnick followed in the footsteps of the hundreds of millions of students who have earned university degrees in the past millennium, she might be slumping in a lecture hall somewhere while a professor droned. But Kippnick has no course lectures. She has no courses to attend at all. No classroom, no college quad, no grades. Her university has no deadlines or tenure-track professors.

Instead, Kippnick makes her way through different subject matters on the way to a bachelor’s in accounting. When she feels she’s mastered a certain subject, she takes a test at home, where a proctor watches her from afar by monitoring her computer and watching her over a video feed. If she proves she’s competent—by getting the equivalent of a B—she passes and moves on to the next subject.

There’s no way this man could be president, right? Just look at him: rumpled and scowling, bald pate topped by an entropic nimbus of white hair. Just listen to him: ranting, in his gravelly Brooklyn accent, about socialism. Socialism!

And yet here we are: In the biggest surprise of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, this thoroughly implausible man, Bernie Sanders, is a sensation.

He is drawing enormous crowds—11,000 in Phoenix, 8,000 in Dallas, 2,500 in Council Bluffs, Iowa—the largest turnout of any candidate from any party in the first-to-vote primary state. He has raised $15 million in mostly small donations, to Hillary Clinton’s $45 million—and unlike her, he did it without holding a single fundraiser. Shocking the political establishment, it is Sanders—not Martin O’Malley, the fresh-faced former two-term governor of Maryland; not Joe Biden, the sitting vice president—to whom discontented Democratic voters looking for an alternative to Clinton have turned.

During the multi-country press tour for Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation, not even Jon Stewart has dared ask Tom Cruise about Scientology.

During the media blitz for Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation over the past two weeks, Tom Cruise has seemingly been everywhere. In London, he participated in a live interview at the British Film Institute with the presenter Alex Zane, the movie’s director, Christopher McQuarrie, and a handful of his fellow cast members. In New York, he faced off with Jimmy Fallon in a lip-sync battle on The Tonight Show and attended the Monday night premiere in Times Square. And, on Tuesday afternoon, the actor recorded an appearance on The Daily Show With Jon Stewart, where he discussed his exercise regimen, the importance of a healthy diet, and how he still has all his own hair at 53.

Stewart, who during his career has won two Peabody Awards for public service and the Orwell Award for “distinguished contribution to honesty and clarity in public language,” represented the most challenging interviewer Cruise has faced on the tour, during a challenging year for the actor. In April, HBO broadcast Alex Gibney’s documentary Going Clear, a film based on the book of the same title by Lawrence Wright exploring the Church of Scientology, of which Cruise is a high-profile member. The movie alleges, among other things, that the actor personally profited from slave labor (church members who were paid 40 cents an hour to outfit the star’s airplane hangar and motorcycle), and that his former girlfriend, the actress Nazanin Boniadi, was punished by the Church by being forced to do menial work after telling a friend about her relationship troubles with Cruise. For Cruise “not to address the allegations of abuse,” Gibney said in January, “seems to me palpably irresponsible.” But in The Daily Show interview, as with all of Cruise’s other appearances, Scientology wasn’t mentioned.

An attack on an American-funded military group epitomizes the Obama Administration’s logistical and strategic failures in the war-torn country.

Last week, the U.S. finally received some good news in Syria:.After months of prevarication, Turkey announced that the American military could launch airstrikes against Islamic State positions in Syria from its base in Incirlik. The development signaled that Turkey, a regional power, had at last agreed to join the fight against ISIS.

The announcement provided a dose of optimism in a conflict that has, in the last four years, killed over 200,000 and displaced millions more. Days later, however, the positive momentum screeched to a halt. Earlier this week, fighters from the al-Nusra Front, an Islamist group aligned with al-Qaeda, reportedly captured the commander of Division 30, a Syrian militia that receives U.S. funding and logistical support, in the countryside north of Aleppo. On Friday, the offensive escalated: Al-Nusra fighters attacked Division 30 headquarters, killing five and capturing others. According to Agence France Presse, the purpose of the attack was to obtain sophisticated weapons provided by the Americans.

Some say the so-called sharing economy has gotten away from its central premise—sharing.

This past March, in an up-and-coming neighborhood of Portland, Maine, a group of residents rented a warehouse and opened a tool-lending library. The idea was to give locals access to everyday but expensive garage, kitchen, and landscaping tools—such as chainsaws, lawnmowers, wheelbarrows, a giant cider press, and soap molds—to save unnecessary expense as well as clutter in closets and tool sheds.

The residents had been inspired by similar tool-lending libraries across the country—in Columbus, Ohio; in Seattle, Washington; in Portland, Oregon. The ethos made sense to the Mainers. “We all have day jobs working to make a more sustainable world,” says Hazel Onsrud, one of the Maine Tool Library’s founders, who works in renewable energy. “I do not want to buy all of that stuff.”

The Islamic State is no mere collection of psychopaths. It is a religious group with carefully considered beliefs, among them that it is a key agent of the coming apocalypse. Here’s what that means for its strategy—and for how to stop it.

What is the Islamic State?

Where did it come from, and what are its intentions? The simplicity of these questions can be deceiving, and few Western leaders seem to know the answers. In December, The New York Times published confidential comments by Major General Michael K. Nagata, the Special Operations commander for the United States in the Middle East, admitting that he had hardly begun figuring out the Islamic State’s appeal. “We have not defeated the idea,” he said. “We do not even understand the idea.” In the past year, President Obama has referred to the Islamic State, variously, as “not Islamic” and as al-Qaeda’s “jayvee team,” statements that reflected confusion about the group, and may have contributed to significant strategic errors.

The new version of Apple’s signature media software is a mess. What are people with large MP3 libraries to do?

When the developer Erik Kemp designed the first metadata system for MP3s in 1996, he provided only three options for attaching text to the music. Every audio file could be labeled with only an artist, song name, and album title.

Kemp’s system has since been augmented and improved upon, but never replaced. Which makes sense: Like the web itself, his schema was shipped, good enough,and an improvement on the vacuum which preceded it. Those three big tags, as they’re called, work well with pop and rock written between 1960 and 1995. This didn’t prevent rampant mislabeling in the early days of the web, though, as anyone who remembers Napster can tell you. His system stumbles even more, though, when it needs to capture hip hop’s tradition of guest MCs or jazz’s vibrant culture of studio musicianship.

A controversial treatment shows promise, especially for victims of trauma.

It’s straight out of a cartoon about hypnosis: A black-cloaked charlatan swings a pendulum in front of a patient, who dutifully watches and ping-pongs his eyes in turn. (This might be chased with the intonation, “You are getting sleeeeeepy...”)

Unlike most stereotypical images of mind alteration—“Psychiatric help, 5 cents” anyone?—this one is real. An obscure type of therapy known as EMDR, or Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing, is gaining ground as a potential treatment for people who have experienced severe forms of trauma.

Here’s the idea: The person is told to focus on the troubling image or negative thought while simultaneously moving his or her eyes back and forth. To prompt this, the therapist might move his fingers from side to side, or he might use a tapping or waving of a wand. The patient is told to let her mind go blank and notice whatever sensations might come to mind. These steps are repeated throughout the session.